Flying on to Syria

According to a couple of polls, the majority of Canadians support the government's intent to expand and extend their armed incursions in the Middle East (ipsos). All I can say is - they have not asked me for my thoughts on this topic.

I am a pacifist. By that I mean that I believe that the use of physical force to resolve an issue is always the worst alternative. I can appreciate that there are times when it appears as if there is little choice. I suspect that if I had been alive and living in Europe in 1939, the only conceivable choice would have been to go to war against Germany. The time to make different choices was well before1930-31 when the world could have done something to negate the pressures that were developing that eventually produced Nazism. However our willingness to invade the airspace of a foreign country (Syria) that is over 9,000 kilometres away and that has not attacked us (or any of our allies) is grossly inappropriate. To do so without the support of the UN or Nato is illegal in any world court and would, I suggest, put  Canada's reputation as a peace loving nation in serious risk. It perhaps makes us vulnerable to being charged with war crimes. Any rationalization for this act can only be found in hyper exaggerated rhetoric.    

We are going to bomb sites in Syria where someone suspects that there are ISIS terrorists. We are going to do so without any consultation with the Syrian government. We are engaged in this activity without any real understanding of the long term consequences. At the end of the day the best that we will have achieved is the destruction of some terrorists. This act will only serve to strengthen the dictator who controls Syria with an iron hand and who is alleged to have used poison gas to control the population. This is the same dictator who less than 18 months ago was being condemned by the western world. Some western countries have been supporting the citizens who were in armed rebellion against this dictator. This is the same leader who has caused such civil strife that the Syrian refugee situation is only second to the Palestinian refugee crisis. The UN is preparing a list of names from the Syrian government to be potentially charged with crimes against humanity.  Why would we want to do anything that might help him?  At worst our intervention will cause more pain and suffering and, will enable those who thrive on chaos to establish control over that region.

There are other things that we could do. We could do as Sweden has done and take in some refugees (Sweden with a population of 9.6 million has taken in 14,700 (Sweden) refugees in the past 2 years). In spite of our government's promise to do so, it appears as if Canada with a population of 33 million people had pledged to take in only 1,400 refugees. We have not yet met that goal. Or Canada could take the money it is spending on planes, gas and bombs and instead provide food for those who are starving. We could try to provide stability to the region so that those who live there can get on with their lives and be in control of their own destiny. Or we could start a worldwide movement to stop the sale of guns and bullets to terrorist organizations.

Someone is selling the guns etc to the terrorist. They can only function because they have more guns than those who they are trying to dominate.  Why don't we just stop the flow of arms. It is difficult for me to believe that people don't know where the arms are coming from. Canada's arms industry is relatively small. I am sure that all of the sales go to recognized governments (although I am sure there are some who have rather poor human rights records). But does are we doing enough to ensure that those guns etc. stay in the country we send them to? I suspect not.

War is wrong. War that is poorly planned, that has no realistic/well defined goals and that is almost guaranteed to cause more destruction to the people of that country is not only wrong, it is immoral. We need to find another way.